Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The issue is not related to the ‘title of the property’ but for the claim of fundamental right of worship or prayer and if the ‘disputed area’ is held to be a ‘protected monument’ under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, the bar under the Places of Worship Act, 1991 would not apply.”
“Every order issued by the Princely Ruler survives as law only when it goes through the test as prescribed under the Constitution, thus, the Ailan of 1935 was merely an executive or administrative arrangement and not a legislative enactment and the ASI report establishes a pre-existing temple structure, whose remains form the base of the present monument.”
“The religious character of the “disputed area” of Bhojshala Complex and Kamal Maula Mosque was held to be a Temple of Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati) in the light of provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.”
“If the local authorities, i.e., Superintendent of Police and Collector, feel that the law and order situation could arise because of which they want to limit the number of worshipers within the premises. They should either resign from their post or seek transfer outside Sambhal if they feel they are not competent enough to enforce the rule of law.”
“Only the Southern Cult residents of Kancheepuram are entitled to Adhiapaka Mirasi. Northern Cult members may join only as ordinary worshippers.”
Madras High Court: Expressing that, the right of worship guaranteed under the Constitution to be respected by all concerned and devotees cannot
Supreme Court: While stating that the Jharkhand High Court has rightly ordered that Shravani Puja cannot be held holding big congregation fair